Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday December 08, 2012 @09:02PM
from the opinions-are-like-delusions dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A study recently published in Nature (abstract) looked at how personal beliefs altered a person's perception of climate change. Surveying a sample of people in 2008 and then the same people again in 2011, the study looked for 'motivated reasoning,' where 'high belief certainty influenced perceptions of personal experience,' and 'experiential learning,' where 'perceived personal experience of global warming led to increased belief certainty.' According to the article, 'When you categorize individuals by engagement — essentially how confident and knowledgeable they feel about the facts of the issue — differences are revealed. For the highly-engaged groups (on both sides), opinions about whether climate is warming appeared to drive reports of personal experience. That is, motivated reasoning was prevalent. On the other hand, experience really did change opinions for the less-engaged group, and motivated reasoning took a back seat.None of that is truly surprising, but it leads to a couple interesting points. First, the concrete here-and-now communication strategy is probably a good one for those whose opinions aren't firmly set — fully 75 percent of Americans, according to the polling. But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise.'"

Prof. Obvious of the Romero Institute noted today that people who already strongly believe something will continue to do so regardless of new evidence. In related news, the government edges closer to falling off the fiscal cliff, the totally solvable budget problem that we created to force our two political parties to play nice together. Both sides have recently stated they aren't open to negotiation, will not offer any concessions, and aren't talking to each other, however our correspondent on the scene reported recently that they have started writing numbers down on a sheet of paper. The sheet of paper was not immediately available for comment at the time of this post.

"I did not believe GW was happening, but did believe it would cause worse hurricane. Today a bad hurricane happened, so now I have more faith in GW."

or

"I did not believe GW was happening, but did believe it would cause hotter summers.. We had snowfall in June so, therefore, no GW.

The far more interesting thing than the conclusion reached by the source is that none of these is a remotely scientific line of reasoning. Correlating personal experience (i.e., weather events) with climate is long acknowledged as foolish, just like jumping to the conclusion that you live in the most unsafe city in the world because you got mugged -- or that you live in the safest one because you've never been mugged.

Farmers, ski lift operators etc can experience it over decades.After listening to some old radio programs from 1988 I'm astonished that the PR firms and merchants in the temple managed to bring this anti-science bullshit up from nowhere and convince so many people that scientists are lying to them. We're training a generation of fools and setting up our nations for decline.

Climate science is hard. It's so hard even the experts don't completely understand it. And to even become an expert relies on knowledge about hundreds, even thousands of otherwise independent systems, as well as how they tie in together on the planet to form climate.

To expect Joe Sixpack to use climate science as the basis of their rationale behind whether to accept AGW is unreasonable. For the average person, there are only two ways to make up their mind: 1) trust other people or 2) trust their own observations.

You can see the problem with #1 right off the back. Which "other people" should Joe Sixpack trust? Scientists are people. Their religious leader, or the local politician, or their next door neighbor are all people as well. What differentiates a scientist from all those other people? Well, a scientist has a degree certifying the person's knowledge in an area. Only, a certificate is merely a piece of paper. Accepting that the degree implies expertness is a matter of trust as well. But what about all those other people, i.e. religious leader, politician, or neighbor? Those people are closer to Joe Sixpack. They have a constant and direct influence on their lives, and have already gained some measure of trust.

At this point, the more introspective and thoughtful Joe Sixpack would recognize that the latter group of people are not experts on the matter. So yeah, they might be trustworthy in the eyes of Joe Sixpack, but they probably know nothing about the climate and how it works (sure, if they're lucky, they live near a climate scientists, but that's rare). So they discard option #1, and go for option #2.

The human mind is not very good at processing things as vast and as complex as the climate. They cannot memorize and graph even two years worth of data inside their heads, not to mention ten (some people cannot even add inside their heads, but they're a special breed). They cannot correlate a special event in California with a special event in Europe. But they are good at processing the current day's weather, and drawing simple patterns based on notable weather anomalies. So that's exactly what they do.

So now that I've established the parameters of the problem, I leave everyone else to come up with solutions. No matter the solution, it involves at least interjecting into either the first or the second option. And to make things more complicated, there are big companies who are messing around with the first option already, and they have tons more money than most individuals to throw at the task.

You can see the problem with #1 right off the back. Which "other people" should Joe Sixpack trust? Scientists are people. Their religious leader, or the local politician, or their next door neighbor are all people as well. What differentiates a scientist from all those other people? Well, a scientist has a degree certifying the person's knowledge in an area. Only, a certificate is merely a piece of paper. Accepting that the degree implies expertness is a matter of trust as well. But what about all those other people, i.e. religious leader, politician, or neighbor? Those people are closer to Joe Sixpack. They have a constant and direct influence on their lives, and have already gained some measure of trust.

At this point, the more introspective and thoughtful Joe Sixpack would recognize that the latter group of people are not experts on the matter. So yeah, they might be trustworthy in the eyes of Joe Sixpack, but they probably know nothing about the climate and how it works (sure, if they're lucky, they live near a climate scientists, but that's rare). So they discard option #1, and go for option #2.

The trick then, for Joe Sixpack, is figuring out what the scientists believe because unfortunately Joe isn't personally aquanted with very many climate scientists, or weather scientiests, or maybe even scientists in general. So where does Joe get his information about the scientists from? Newspapers, magazines, the TV. Unfortunately Joe long ago learned that those sources are full of crap and will willingly attempt to mislead him, or maybe even lie to him, in order to push agendas that the journalists want to push. Joe has learned to be very skeptical of those news sources. So when those news sources tell him that a lot of scientists say global warming is real, Joe is skeptical. And when Joe sees that this is what the news sources are saying after Al Gore made a big deal out of it, and Joe knows how cozy journalists are with the Democratic party, Joe is even more skeptical.

When Joe reads what newspapers say about topics he knows about, Joe sees how badly those newspapers spin things. So how do you expect Joe to trust the newspapers on topics he knows nothing about?

That is a good post, but I think there's a very significant distinction in #1 that you're missing. I do not trust "scientists" any more than I trust "clergy" or "politicians." Individual scientists, no matter how gifted or principled, are prone to the same flaws as very other human being: ignorance, hubris, greed, etc., etc.

I do, however, trust the scientific process. I trust that over time, working as a community, we can use rigorous experiment and debate to establish a degree of certainty about how

"A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations, which may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias [wikipedia.org]

A figure of 75 percent unconvinced is encouraging in one sense. I means that the majority of the people aren't buying either argument yet. That's fine. We don't have anywhere near a clear understanding of how climate change is working (or not), who or what is responsible and what, if anything, we can do about it. The fact that the majority remains skeptical is a healthy sign.

We can only hope that the group that actually does the science and gets i

For the past 16 years, the earth has *not* been changing in temperature in any statistically significant way.

If you want to pick any particularly arbitrary points, you can assert that the earth is getting warmer, the earth is getting cooler, and the earth is staying the same temperature.

1900-2012? Getting warmer.

1998-2012? Staying the same.

Fun fact, 1998-2012, we've been dramatically increasing global CO2 levels. The NOAA stated in 2008 that 15 years of no statistically significant warming would exclude their models at the 95% confidence level.

So, if the falsifiable claim is simply "the earth is getting warmer", well, that's trivial - it happens all the time. The thing you missed from your falsifiable hypothesis is "human CO2 emissions are *causing* the earth to get X degrees warmer over Y amount of time" and "getting X degrees warmer over Y amount of time is going to cause catastrophic destruction that we must avoid by doing Z amount of economic damage to ourselves today".

Wrong, because the scientists have politicized themselves and the science.

Al Gore is not a scientist.

This is all very stupid anyway and the result of a very expensive PR campaign. If the scientists said nothing in the face of the PR the PR lies would have been accepted at face value. Now people like yourself are saying that by not being good little quiet scientists because they spoke out against the PR lies they are not good scientists? That's a sign of the petty little trap sprung by the PR folks, an a

You could just stop listening to the political sides and listen to climate scientists instead.Problem solved.

Wrong, because the scientists have politicized themselves and the science.

If a scientist advocates for some political action to be taken or not taken or policy to be enacted or not enacted then he has politicized himself, and his opinion is political, not scientific.

That's ridiculous. If astronomers detect an asteroid on a collision course with the earth and testify before Congress about it, does that disqualify them from having an opinion on the topic? (And justify ignoring the threat?)

Scientists are people, and are entitled to advocacy just like everyone else. In fact, if they advocate for public policy based on facts, there's far more reason to listen to them than to most people advocating this or that.

Those advocating one side or the other are not scientists, at least while they are advocating.

So, no scientists have advocated one side over another, as the very act of advocacy disqualifies them as performing "science" and therefor their opions are not "scientific", but political.

Strat

That wins a prize for convoluted logic even on the internet.

If you don't like global warming, try arguing against the facts rather than for disqualifying the opinions of those who actually know the facts.

1. The vast majority of scientists who have devoted their professional lives to the study of the earth's climate;

I think you will find that the vast majority of so called climate scientists have believed in AGW from a very young age and are not attempting to disprove the theory (as you would normally do in science), but to reinforce it as much as possible so as to convince politicians to save the world from what they passionately believe will otherwise result in the extinction of our entire species and perhaps even all animal life on the planet.

Imagine a mythical climate scientist who is not a true believer. Who didn'

I think you will find that the vast majority of so called climate scientists have believed in AGW from a very young age and are not attempting to disprove the theory

Since it's been considered obvious from about as long as plate tectonics that would be the case, but that doesn't make it wrong.Conversely, if somebody manages to truly disprove global warming there's a shitload of money in it for them from a pile of lobby groups and a Nobel prize to put on their mountain of money. Even an attempt or fabricatio

To show how these things work, I've been thinking about setting up a denial campaign for an obviously factual event: "Hurricane" Sandy.

It wasn't really a hurricane. National weather service decided not to issue a warning. The roller coaster would not have landed in one piece as it is photographed. We could build a pretty solid case that it wasn't real. It would really piss off the people who were there:-)

To show how these things work, I've been thinking about setting up a denial campaign for an obviously factual event: "Hurricane" Sandy.

It wasn't really a hurricane. National weather service decided not to issue a warning. The roller coaster would not have landed in one piece as it is photographed. We could build a pretty solid case that it wasn't real. It would really piss off the people who were there:-)

Wish i hadn't responded to a troll then I would have modded you up.

If you want a model on how this might work, have a look here [wikipedia.org]. And yes, people get really pissed off. For something a bit less touchy try this [wikipedia.org] too.

I've got a better one. Let's pretend the Holocaust didn't happen, and then we can associate anyone who doesn't believe in the Holocaust with those who don't believe in climate change, thus totally discrediting them.

The time to do something effective about climate change was 20 years ago. And the scientific data was solid back then. It was ignored because it was too inconvenient. I guess that will make a nice inscription on the tomb-stone of the current civilization: "It died because saving itself was too inconvenient".

A lot of the anti-globalwarming movement rely on classic FUD, throwing enough shit on the wall and counting on that something will stick.

Just like creationists. There aren't any "creation scientists" trying to build a coherent theory of creationism. They're all just busy nit-picking something that they hope will cast doubt on some tiny aspect of the huge pile of evidence that supports a conclusion that they don't want to accept.

And just like the anti-globalwarming movement, there are crowds of people standing by to gobble up any claim they make.

Indeed. They got this story [slashdot.org] on Slashdot even: "Ticking Arctic Carbon Bomb May Be Bigger Than Expected"

The pro-AGW movement seems to make all these interesting claims: 6-10C rise by the end of the century and substantial rise in sea level, end of the human race, hidden tipping points that we could trigger any day now, AGW caused a huge list of bad things to happen (every bit of weather that is in any way remotely odd, species extinction, wildfires, etc), and the climate change deniers will be first agains

"But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 17 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a *naturally* warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise."

There, fixed. Both sides apparently have highly motivated reasoning going on, no reason you can't turn the sentence around the other way.

I'd suggest the way to discern between the motivated reasoning and the scientific truth requires ye good old falsifiable hypothesis statement as per

"But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 17 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a *naturally* warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise."

There, fixed. Both sides apparently have highly motivated reasoning going on, no reason you can't turn the sentence around the other way

I've read plenty of studies talking about how abnormally cold winters in many places are also the result of climate change. What you did there? It's a logical fallacy. You're assuming that scientists say that, then making an erroneous conclusion based on it. But your initial assumption isn't factual.

If someone says they believe in AGW but refuse to support nuclear technology, the ONLY technology able to replace our base load generation requirements and not produce CO2, then it is more likely that they believe in AGW only as a vehicle to impose their already established political agenda of rationing and taxes.

The irony is that if we did go full nuclear, it would go a long way towards satisfying the agendas of anti-AGW people (Cheap and abundant energy) and the AGW crowd.

If someone argues nuclear would be the only technology to fight AGW, then it is more likely that they believe in AGW only as a vehicle to further their nuclear agenda.
See? Works in the other direction too.

Then, it's climate, not weather. Otherwise somebody would have to take responsibility and what self-respecting politician would do that?

No matter how many decades engineers say that the levees in New Orleans are perfectly insufficient for a city in that place, it's still climate change when the inevitable happens. When hurricane Irene came to New York last year, the models of the expected flooding were right at everybodies hands - because it happened before. Several times.

Hurricane + flood + drought + tornado + superultramegastorm Sandy + record high temperature at a given location + record low temperature at a given location + all of the other weather in between taken over a long enough time period = climate.by definition. How they change over time in number, length and strength is an indication of climate change.

there is no statistical trend in extreme weather events that correlates to human CO2 emissions, or heck, even to global CO2 levels in general. In fact, cyclonic activity has *dropped* (which, if you read some AGW papers, is expected because the temperature gradient between the poles and equator is reduced...of course others expect more cyclonic activity, so no matter what happens, someone can pull a paper out and say "see, g

We know about global warming, not from observing warm days, but from longitudinal measurements from all over the world.

And of course, we understand the mechanism. The "greenhouse" property of certain gasses that we have been spewing into the atmosphere in ever-increasing amounts since the beginning of the industrial age has been known IIRC for about 200 years.

Also, global warming doesn't imply warm winters in any particular location. It means more thermal energy in our atmosphere and oceans, which can destabilize that very complex dynamical system that we call "weather".

For an example of a mechanism whereby global warming can make winter colder in specific locations, see "The Winters of Our Discontent" in the December 2012 Scientific American.

But then, I'm guessing that you're not particularly interested in learning how scientists figure out what's going on, or you wouldn't be posting such nonsense. A "first post!" would have made you look less foolish.

Are you sure? The last glacial maximum was between 19-25000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum) during which time vast portions of North America and Europe were covered in ice sheets.

19,000 years is a pretty short period of time in the grand scheme of things. To think the location I'm currently living was underneath a kilometer of ice less than 20,000 years ago, and no there are no glaciers anywhere close, the logical conclusion is the earth has been warming up for a lot longer than just the time since the industrial age. In fact, from what I understand about earth's history, we've been a majorly tropical planet for most of the time and ice cover is somewhat rare.

There's no doubt we have some effect on the changing climate (in regards to temperature via the greenhouse effect), but to say that is the mechanism causing the earth to warm seems like a huge jump from basic logic.

I have the utmost sympathy for someone who has an IQ of 70, but IMO people who are wilful idiots deserve all the crap anyone cares to dump on them.

I guess if you can't attack the argument, attack the person instead. At least you'll feel better. I see you did attack the argument earlier on, but you might as well not have bothered with a sign-off like that.

But you see, I *did* attack the argument [slashdot.org]. You're just latching on to the fact that I ended by mentioning that anyone who made the slightest effort to inform themselves never would have made the argument in the first place.

Maybe we should address the question of why you're doing that instead of responding to my refutation of the argument?

I have the utmost sympathy for someone who has an IQ of 70, but IMO people who are wilful idiots deserve all the crap anyone cares to dump on them.

I guess if you can't attack the argument, attack the person instead. At least you'll feel better. I see you did attack the argument earlier on, but you might as well not have bothered with a sign-off like that.

But you see, I *did* attack the argument [slashdot.org]. You're just latching on to the fact that I ended by mentioning that anyone who made the slightest effort to inform themselves never would have made the argument in the first place.

Maybe we should address the question of why you're doing that instead of responding to my refutation of the argument?

I did acknowledge that you attacked the argument. I didn't make any effort to respond to your refutation because I completely agree with you (both on your statements on the mechanics of global warming and that the OP is an uninformed dick). All I was saying was that your closing comments dilute the rest of your argument and could have been left off, as it brings the whole post down to the level of those you are responding to, which is not somewhere you want to go. A personal attack does not belong here.

Since clearly you did not read his post, since you began with something he already said while acting like he didnt know it, well.. that tells us how emotionally involved you are, which explains the insults you were using too.

It is very clear that your belief, be it scientifically right or wrong, is internally justified on an emotional rather than rational level. That you are so vocal about it means that nobody should listen to you on any

Oh please, humans can do practically nothing to affect the humidity (water vapor level) of the atmosphere. The planet is 75% covered by water, a ready source of humidity. Any excess humidity we add quickly* precipitates out to rebalance the level, any humidity we remove will be replaced quickly from the vast sources of water. Temperature is the primary controller of humidity and water vapor levels in the atmosphere.

He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.

The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.

He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.

It's a simple fact that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice, and as such, it has meaning. It is not direct evidence that global warming is occurring; it is good evidence that the direct evidence has been thoroughly examined.

The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.

Well, I have comforting news for you: it's not. You seem to have scared yourself with your own rhetoric.

The really scary thing about global warming is how Republicans have group-thinked themselves into a scientifically idiotic shared point of view. Now, when they group think themselves into being anti-gay, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-Mexican, pro-death penalty, anti-poor and pro-rich, at least they didn't have to ignore laws of nature to group-think themselves into those positions. Attacking logic itself is way over the line.

No... there's a real measurable difference in modern R vs D. For example, 58% of R believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, while 41% of D feel that way. It's scary for both parties, but at least the rational majority in D get to set policies taking into account reality, while R makes a practice of selling scientifically proven false ideas to it's own people. R is not just ignorant about climate change. They're ignorant about evolution, and are continuing to push for it to be removed from our science classes. This level of "true conservative" group think is almost a new religion. Go look at who R puts on the House Science Committee. Good grief!

He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.

The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.

As someone who thinks the "scientific consensus" on AGW is much more likely correct than not, I have to say I agree with this. History is littered with examples of scientific consensus that was later proven wrong, and indeed that is the very definition of scientific progress.

The key thing to consider when evaluating an unsettled scientific issue is to note whether the evidence for a particular hypothesis gets stronger or weaker as more and better research is done. By my admittedly layman's interpretation of what read, the evidence for AGW has only been getting stronger over time, and the evidence presented against it seems increasingly narrow. But even though I agree with the "scientific consensus", I hate hearing and reading it as the cliched soundbite and doubt it's convincing any of that 75% of people who are unsure (however they defined unsure).

Actual data shows that temperatures in the last 20 years have DROPPED, not increased.

You should check into that claim. It is, of course, trivially wrong. At least your using multi-decade trends. Most of your intellectual brethren will only look back far enough to get the statistical trend they want: nothing. But on a 20 year time scale there is a slight warming trend with p
Look into it. Open you mind. If you are wrong about this, you may be wrong about... many things.

By my admittedly layman's interpretation of what read, the evidence for AGW has only been getting stronger over time

Perhaps because that's all that people are looking for. No matter what happens, it is inevitably spun as evidence for AGW.

Do you have the faintest idea how much prestige accrues to a scientist who overturns the common conception? Do we recognize the names of Einstein and Hubble because they were staunch supporters of the status quo?

If I was a climatologist and had actual evidence that global warming wasn't happening, I'd make myself famous in a heartbeat.

Well isn't it obvious? Every day the earth warms means that more and more people are sinning and not asking for forgiveness. Eventually Satan will come out of the depths (followed closely by an annoying sounding English speaking Saddam Hussein) to literally rain fire and bring hell to earth and all the sinners that remain. And everybody in heaven will be standing on unfrozen icebergs that encase tons of carbon while looking down on all the bad people burning and suffering in eternal damnation.

He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.

The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.

We're not saying that reality is subject to a vote. We're saying "when in doubt, listen to the experts".

That can be problematic advice when the experts are strongly divided on the topic, but when there's near unanimity among all the experts in the world, sensible people listen to them.

And in fact people usually do. But curiously, when there's near unanimity among all the relevant scientists about a conclusion that some people don't like, some of those people excuse dismissing the opinions of the experts o

Scientists rarely say anything one way or the other. They publish papers and then the politicos, pundits and whatever you call us here on Slashdot and other sites start arguing and calling each other names over what they published.

But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise.

I'm surprised the figure isn't much higher. The denial movement has been quite strong lately, even here on slashdot where you might expect some degree of scientific literacy.

Given the high percentage of ACs among the anti-GW posts, you have to wonder whether they are ordinary slashdotters or shills. Or trolls.

Ditto for the many creationists, though I don't think so many of them are ACs.

Given that we have people who sit around all day watching television hoping to find something they can complain to the FCC about, I find myself wondering if you've got groups of people who sit around "watching" the internet for stories to cast doubt on.

I am pro-GW (I am in favor of it). So perhaps I may be of some assistance. I try to resist posting in global warming related 'stories' because:

1. They are off topic for this site. Nothing to do with geeks or technology or Linux.

2. Any post I make is likely to be modded down to -1 and vanish before any interesting discussion can develop. That is pretty much inevitible with any controversial topic where the overwhelming majority is on one side of the debate. I think you guys really do prefer to just debate am

Joking aside, I appreciate your forthright post. And I despise the fact that people mod down posts that state views that they don't agree with. (Much better, IMO, to mod them *up*, so that the post and the refutations (or attempts) will be read by more people.)

But IMO, here's the crux:

Let me summarize the debate. One side believes there is sufficient evidence for theory X. The other side believes there is insufficient evidence. The side that believes there is sufficient evidence believes that the evidence is so overwhelming that to be skeptical of it is of the same order as being skeptical of gravity.

I am not a climatologist, but I do know a bit about how science works. And I know that the overwhelming majority of *scientists* believes that there is sufficient evidence for the fact (not theory) of global warming. So for me there *aren't* two sides.

Now scientists aren't divinely inspired, and are in fact sometimes wrong, but in the big picture science bases its views on evidence, and even goes out of its way to look for refuting evidence. So for me this is like asking whether I should invest in someone's flying car business when the overwhelming majority of aeronautical engineers say that the design won't actually fly, contradicted by a smaller number of non-experts who publish their views as editorials in the Wall Street Journal rather than engineering journals. There simply isn't the slightest reason to examine "two sides". Especially when the contradictors resort to arguments that the entire field of aeronautical engineering are lying because they want the venture to fail. It's just nonsense.

I personally believe rational argument is virtually impossible on the topic of global warming. Devout AGW believers will not be swayed by any argument. To them AGW is self-evident and the burden of proof should be on the other side to prove that it is not happening.

No, AGW is based on evidence. As I said, I'm not a climatologist, but I can read.

The fact that the vast majority believes AGW is undeniably real and even some kind of immediate threat to our species makes it even more unlikely that any real evidence will ever be gathered.

FWIW, I do believe that AGW is undeniably real, but that the only "threat" is poses to our species is inconvenience, and probably a lot of deaths in wars by nations trying to optimize their own convenience at the expense of others, but hardly an extinction-level event. (*Maybe* a runaway instability will render our planet uninhabitable, but I'm not aware of any evidence that that is our fate.)

The fact that the vast majority believes AGW is undeniably real and even some kind of immediate threat to our species makes it even more unlikely that any real evidence will ever be gathered. Why bother to gather evidence about something that the majority of the world has already decided is undeniably true?

As a matter of fact, scientists *are* busy gathering additional evidence. The fact that both old and new evidence overwhelmingly support one conclusion is hardly a reason to deny that conclusion.

These days scientists (and I use that term loosely) focus on refining and reinforcing the argument in favor of AGW. Not so much on proving that it exists.

Scientists are also busy studying gravity and the expanding universe, but as with global warming, they're far past the point of needing to determine whether those phenomena exist.

Humans cause global warming with CO2 and similar.a) Do nothing, climate gets worse, costs of a lot of money to adapt and repair damages.b) Change our energy sources and energy use, costs money to do up front, long term gains only.

Humans do not cause global warminga) Do nothing, no upfront costs, no long term gainsb) Change our energy sources and energy use, costs money to do up front, reduces pollution, extends life expectancy (due to reduced pollution), reduces dependence on foreign energy sources.

In my opinion, even if humans have absolutely no impact on climate, I still want us to change our energy sources and energy use - the long term gains from doing so are very much worth it.

Ah, I see the problem. You've mixed up the "local absence of evidence" with the "global absence of evidence". Allow me to explain:
A "global absence of evidence" is where a person makes a statement for which no evidence supporting their claim exists.
A "local absence of evidence" is where a person makes a statement for which evidence supporting that claim exists, however they did not provide the evidence (or a reference to where that evidence can be obtained from).

Maybe if the warmists tried persuasion, posting from their login account instead of calling everyone a scientifically illiterate jerkface dweeb as AC, they might be winning more people over to their point of view.

There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.

I wasn't saying they shouldn't do it, nor be banned from doing it, nor that it should be illegal. Only that this other way might be more effective. I fully support the warmist choice to be ineffective. More power to 'em. Just trying to be helpful here.

I started out assuming the warmist side of this issue and stayed there many years, being big into natural sciences and earth sciences and such. It was just the general dickwad nature of the warmist argument: "sit down and shut up while scientists are speaking!" and the general fear of discussion that led me to investigate the matter for myself. Turns out I was wrong to be so trusting.

I was there, and I was a Democrat. Carter was one of the most disastrous presidents the US has ever had. His economic ideas were directly responsible for a huge recession that cost my parents their house and forced me out of my home at 12 years old (28% mortgage rates on my parents' variable rate mortgage? Are you fucking kidding?).

Reagan was a dangerous man. Reagan WAS fucking crazy. Fortunately for us, a Fucking Crazy president was just what we needed at that time to scare the SHIT out of anybody who might make trouble. We elected him and the world shut the fuck up for long enough for us to get our shit back together. The only guy stupid enough to try to be more crazy was Qaddafi, and that didn't end well for Qaddafi.

Funny thing: Reagan probably didn't even know where he was the whole time, and he was STILL a better president than Carter. Toward the end the actor came out and he was acting as if he was President on a set when actually he WAS the president.

/Fun times. Scared the shit out of me. I was in the US military at the time. Spent the whole time thinking the End was near. But it worked out and I didn't have to go to some far place and meet unpleasant people who wanted to kill me.

even here on slashdot where you might expect some degree of scientific literacy.

The most interesting thing I've noticed about both sides is how quick each is to dismiss the other's opinions. I've spent quite a bit of time reading well written opinions on both side and I can conclusively say that there is solid reasoning on both sides. There is also a lot of poorly written and even more poorly reasoned stuff out there.

Short but related story: I got sick of political attack advertisments a couple election cyc

"People are entitled to their own opinions, they aren't entitled to their own facts."

The two facts here that the denialists are hiding from are 1. AGW is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, 2. They ran and a running a large well funded smear operation to lie about AGW, and continue to do so, for their own self-interest.

The tolerance for thermocidal mania is reaching zero, because AGW is an existential threat. Within a finite, and increasingly short period of time, denialism will be as acceptable a

It's insane how so many other areas of study are just accepted when 99% of scientists agree, but this one is different. Shall I listen to some turd on the internet, or people who've been studying it most of their lives and actually know what they are talking about?!

Rejection of creationism or global warming is comprehensible, because of the strong ulterior motives. What I don't get is how rabidly so many people here oppose the existence of dark matter. I'm having trouble grokking a financial or religious motive for that one.

What I don't get is how rabidly so many people here oppose the existence of dark matter. I'm having trouble grokking a financial or religious motive for that one.

It's an "X" invented to plug a hole between a theory and observation, and with no evidence for it other than that discrepancy (despite much searching for it). That makes it inherently suspicious. That it supposedly makes up the lion's share of matter in the universe makes it even worse that we can't detect it in some other way.

What I don't get is how rabidly so many people here oppose the existence of dark matter. I'm having trouble grokking a financial or religious motive for that one.

It's an "X" invented to plug a hole between a theory and observation, and with no evidence for it other than that discrepancy (despite much searching for it). That makes it inherently suspicious. That it supposedly makes up the lion's share of matter in the universe makes it even worse that we can't detect it in some other way.

However, attempts to plug the hole by modifying the theory of universal gravitation have been unsuccessful. So dark matter as a theory survives.

Actually, it explains several apparently unrelated anomalies.

And FYI, MOND is very good at explaining galaxy rotation curves, but utterly fails at the other stuff.

Sorry, but I don't remember what the other stuff is or how dark matter explains it. But all that is a favorite topic at the Starts with a Bang blog, and in fact I notice that he has yet another post on it [scienceblogs.com] right now, so if you're interested it may be worth a read.

I thought I was the only one who tied those arguments together. For me the tie-in was the preference for a simple explanation over a vague one, and when I learned of more compelling evidence, I changed my beliefs regardless of my preference.

I still like the Quantum Gravity theory better, but I'm no longer convinced it is the truth. I'm feel exactly the same way about AGW. Whenever I try to grasp the size of the world we live in, let alone the magnitude of something like the sun, I feel how small and insigni

...that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise.

We are pleased to announce that in recognition of their high engagement and their high motivation to disregard facts, those 8% are all eligible to a Darwin award.

I think the Darwin Award would only be appropriate if their actions harmed themselves without having the same negative consequences on the rest of us.

...that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise.

We are pleased to announce that in recognition of their high engagement and their high motivation to disregard facts, those 8% are all eligible to a Darwin award.

I think the Darwin Award would only be appropriate if their actions harmed themselves without having the same negative consequences on the rest of us.

Indeed, I can only agree with you. On the other hand, if an 8% of ignorants is enough to prevent us to act collectively, we are in for the highest Darwin award (or next to the highest as the highest would be the extinction of all life): a Species Darwin Award.

Climate change is big business. Those in the profession who don't push the agenda end up hungry. Money corrupts all, and at this point I basically have a hard time believing anyone 100%. Scare tactics work, and generate money. And when caught in a flat out lie, over overexageration it becomes a 1 step forward, 2 steps back as far as trust with me.

So how come scientists in all the other fields are too stoopid to get in on the scam? Can't astronomers just make up claims about a non-existent asteroid that's going to smash us later this century if we don't poor big money into further research, and rely on greed to keep anyone from revealing the fraud? Physicists, astronomers, biologists, geologists - all too dull witted or honest to do what those clever climatologists have done.

a) No climatologist claims that they can explain "every single event ever observed", even if you limit that to relevant events.

b) Why do you think what climatologists say isn't falsifiable? Did thermometers stop working or something? Are the melting glaciers and ice caps irrelevant? Do you know of some climatologists' hypothesis where measurable quantities such as, say, warming, are irrelevant?

This is like saying that continental drift is an unfalsifiable hypothesis in an age when we can directly measure it.

a) when AGW alarmists see record heat waves, it's because of global warming. when they see record cold snaps, it's because of global warming. then they move to "climate change" (which, always does, so that's like saying "I'm right as long as something that always happens keeps happening"), and then the record does something silly like exhibit a zero trend for 16 years.

b) AGW isn't falsifiable because any observation of global average CO2 and global average temperature can be explained away with an ad hoc special pleading. If the melting glaciers *prove* AGW, but advancing glaciers don't *refute* it, then you've simply done a "heads I win, tails you lose".

Continental drift *is* falsifiable -> find a seam of rock stretching from south america to africa that is all of exactly the same age (given that our current hypothesis of continental drift depends on the mid atlantic creating new rock as those two continents drifted apart).

I hear you, and I been through that phase. Now I honestly look at the mess of politics and laughter is the only way to take its stomach churning stupidity. I once read about a politician who was cool with the fundamental irrationality of the world, and he laughed a lot too. I guess that's an aspiration of mine.

About 10 years ago I worked out that pretty much everything I knew was wrong. I just heard something I believed from someone else who heard something they believed etc. I thought it was a joke that people believe in the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, but now I realise that some people really experience the world that way. That is when I stopped knowing and started listening, and really tried to understand different perspectives from their own point of view.

There is stage beyond that, where you just realise stupidity is stupidity. There are many great politicians who really should be doing the job they do, and they are matched by equal numbers of lunatics and egomaniacs. If the crazy could be put in the bag, it would have been done a long time ago.

Any tool you use to deal with a madman, the madman will then learn and use it as a tool to propagate their madness, quite unselfconsciously. That is why movement conservatives are going around talking about arithmetic after Clintons speech at the DNC. Any rhetoric that/could/ successfully be used against AGW denial could equally be used to promote any stupid idea. The truth of things is a little too complex for open debate, which is why there is so little of it -- even in academia -- and why Leo Strauss [wikipedia.org] so favoured the noble lie.

Perhaps one day I'll see the wisdom of not laughing behind someone's back, but people accept the level of reality they are willing to bear, and laughter can cut straight through that. It can drive the deluded into an even deeper delusion, but it may also be the only message a person can hear. If it sounds a little 6th gradish, then consider that an anger response is the greatest predictor (by far) that someone will share something with someone else. Politics really is the way it is for a reason.

I mean, really, there are people out there who *actually believe* that we have sophisticated enough GCMs to accurately model all major natural climactic influences...I mean, they *really* believe that they have got a good bead on all the myriad possible natural influences...can you imagine such hubris?

To paraphrase Steve Schneider, climate science is a systems science. Understanding the climate is like understanding the human body, which is also a system. We know a lot about blood, and dna, and lipids, and antibodies, and neurotransmitters... but you will always be able to find something unknown. But that doesn't take away from the broad brushstrokes of what is known. For example, the inability to reverse engineer the vision system does not imply that we don't know that eyes are involved in vision.

Climate science is on that footing, which is why pretty much every climate scientist/believes/ an AGW. There are mental health professionals who believe in demonic possession as a proportion.

I have only a moderate amount of expertise in the direct matters, but I certainly know enough to recognise the thoroughness of climate scientists in general, and substance to their arguments. What is more telling about the "debate" is the vapidity of the arguments of "critics", and the fact that they keep flogging the same dead horses again and again. Their arguments sometimes have surface validity but rarely more. Even someone like Pat Michaels, certainly one of the most sophisticated critics, has nothing of substance that I have seen. Watch this congressional testimony [youtube.com] -- starts about 1:30min in.

You must concede that mankind has some influence though right? I mean for millions of years there has been a fairly stable cycle of volcano's etc spewing out CO2 and the plants locking the carbon away underground to keep the balance approximately even, and now we are taking that buried carbon and turning it back into CO2, and also cutting down the trees, while the other outputs of CO2 remain approximately constant.

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and the mechanism is well understood, so I hardly think that's up for debate. Just how much influence that is having on the current climate and how much influence it is going to have in the future is a bit of guesswork (there are other much more potent greenhouse gases around, like water vapour and methane), but to say that mankind has not had any impact at all seems a little ignorant.